Review and Herald, Vol. 36, No. 10. (8/23/1870)

Review and Herald

Aug 23, 1870

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 23, 1870

Eld. Preble on the Sabbath.

[BRO. SMITH: Last winter there was published in the Review what was then called the first article on the Sabbath from T. M. Preble, in 1845. Looking at that I observe in the prefatory remarks the following statement: “We copy as we have it in a small 12-page tract, giving title-page, preface, &c.” And in the preface Eld. P. says: “The substance of the following pages was first published in the Hope of Israel, Feb. 28, 1845.”]

Thus it appears that the original article of Eld. Preble on the Sabbath was not published in the Review. That article most of us have never seen, and I would be much pleased to see it in the Review. Can you favor us, Bro. Editor, with the article? J. H. WAGGONER.

We have procured the paper referred to above, and give the article below.—ED.]

For the Hope of Israel.

THE SABBATH.

DEAR BRO. PEARSON: Wishing for truth on all subjects connected with Christ's coming, I would present a few thoughts on the Sabbath, not for controversy, but for the consideration of the true “Israel” who are looking for the “promise.”

The remarks of Bro. Miller, in his “Lecture on the great Sabbath,” I like very well, because I believe they are true. In speaking of the Sabbath he says, “Its being contained in the ten commands, written by the finger of God, on both tables of the testimony, graven on stone, to be a sign forever, and a perpetual covenant, proves, in my opinion, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it is as binding upon the Christian church, as upon the Jewish, and in the same manner, and for the same reason.” “Life and views,” p. 157. Again he says, p. 160, in speaking of the Sabbath as a sign, “It is a sign because God has given it to us expressly for that purpose.” See our text: “To be a sign between me and them,” i. e., between God and the children of Israel. Now another question will evidently arise: Who are the children of Israel? I answer, while the first covenant was standing they were the children of Jacob, descendants of the twelve tribes; but that covenant they broke. See Lev. 26: 2, 15; also Deut. 31: 10–16. This covenant was broken as Moses had foretold. Then Jesus Christ brought in a new covenant, which continued the sign of the Sabbath, and prepared another people, by writing his law upon their hearts. These now are the true Israel; for the changing of the subjects never did, nor ever can, change the moral law of God. Therefore Paul argues the circumcision of the heart, and says that “they are not all Israel which are of Israel, neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children; but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called; i. e., they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” Now if the children of God are the true Israel, and if the Sabbath was given as a sign forever, and a perpetual covenant, I ask, how can it be abolished while there is one Israelite remaining to claim the promise? You have evidently noticed, that all the difficulties on the Sabbath question among Christians have arisen from the foolish, judaizing notion, that Israel means only the literal Jew. But when we understand Israel to mean the people of God, the difficulties, every man must acknowledge, all vanish at once. I say, and I believe I am supported by the Bible, that the moral law was never given to the Jews as a people exclusively, but they were for a season the keepers of it in charge. And through them the law, oracles, and testimony, have been handed down to us. See Paul's clear reasoning in Romans second, third and fourth chapters, on this point. Then, says the objector, we are under the same obligation to keep the sabbaths of weeks, months, and years, as the Jews were. No, sir; you will observe that these were not included in the decalogue; they were attachments, added by reason of transgression, until the seed should come, to whom the promise of one eternal day or Sabbath of rest, was made. “Therefore there remaineth a keeping of Sabbath to the people of God.” Only one kind of Sabbath was given to Adam, and one only remains for us. See Hosea 2: 11: “I will cause all her mirth to cease, her feast-days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and her solemn feasts.” All the Jewish sabbaths did cease, when Christ nailed them to his cross. Col. 2: 14–17: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath-days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

These were properly called Jewish sabbaths. Hosea says “her sabbaths.” But the Sabbath of which we are speaking God calls “my Sabbath.” There is a clear distinction between the creation Sabbath and the ceremonial. The one is perpetual; the others were merely shadows of good to come, and are limited in Christ. The Sabbath which remains is to be kept on the first day of every week, as a perpetual sign, that when Christ shall have finished the work of redemption, we shall enter into that rest which remains for the people of God, which will be an eternal rest.

The sentiments expressed in the above extract, I believe to be true, except the closing part where it is said, “The Sabbath which remains is to be kept on the first day of every week, as a perpetual sign,” &c. Now, I ask, how can this be? If we keep the first day as “a sign,” I do not see how we can have our thousand years' rest in the new earth, till the eighth thousand years, as the first day would be the eighth, reckoning in successive order from creation. But we all, as Advent believers, have, and do still, expect, our rest in the seventh thousand years. Therefore I think we should keep the “seventh day” as “a sign,” according to the commandment. I know the reasons which are given in favor of keeping the first day, and they once satisfied me, but fail to do it now, after a thorough examination of the subject. It is said that the resurrection of Christ,—and his often meeting his disciples on the first day of the week—together with the practice of the apostles, are sufficient reason for observing the first day of the week. In regard to the resurrection of Christ being on the first day of the week, I will not deny, though some may think it needs proof. Respecting Christ often meeting with his disciples on the first day, I think we have no positive proof that he ever met with them on this day but once when they were assembled for worship, and this we find in John 20: 19. In Matt. all that is said about it is, “Behold he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him,” &c. Matt. 28: 7. Mark says, “He appeared unto two of them as they went into the country, and afterward unto the eleven as they sat at meat,” &c. Mark 16: 12–14. Luke expresses it about the same as Mark. Luke 24: 13–15, 30, 33, 36. John appears to be a little more definite, and says, “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst,” &c. John 20: 19. In the 26th verse he says, “And after eight days,” &c. Not the eighth day after, as it ought to be, had Christ met with them the next first-day. In the 21 chapter, 1–3 verses, we find that he met them again at the sea of Tiberias where the disciples were trying to catch fish. We see therefore that Christ appeared to his disciples while they were

going into the country—as they sat at meat—and when they were “fishing,” but only once when they were assembled for worship, unless their sitting at meat or together—as the margin reads, be considered a meeting of worship.

In relation to the practice of the apostles, there is but one meeting of the disciples on the first day of the week, mentioned in the New Testament, and that is in Acts 20: 7; but there are many meetings recorded which the brethren held on the Sabbath.

1 Cor. 16: 2 is considered proof respecting the first day, but when examined, I think it proves the contrary. It says, “Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him,” &c. The expression, “lay by him in store,” I think plainly implies that they were at home, rather than at meeting. Rev. 1: 10, is the only other place that can be construed to favor the first day. John says, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day.” Who knows whether he meant the first or the seventh day? I think the latter, because it is called “the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” but the first is nowhere called so. In regard to the Sabbath, Christ says, “The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Not a Sabbath, but the Sabbath. He says: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” Mark 2: 27, 28. He does not say the Sabbath was made for the Jews, and a Sabbath for the Gentiles, but “the Sabbath was made for man.” All mankind. Some may think that our first day is, in reality, the seventh; but this is settled when we examine Matt. 28: 1; Luke 23: 56; and 24: 1, where a plain distinction is made between the two days.

Matthew says: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,” &c. Luke says, “And rested the Sabbath-day according to the commandment. Now upon the first day of the week very early in the morning,” &c. After having examined the ancient custom in relation to the first day, we will now see what it was in regard to the seventh or Sabbath. The first passage I will notice, is the one first quoted in Luke 23: 56. “And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath-day, according to the commandment.” Mark this: “And rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.” Acts 13: 42, says: “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.” Verse 44. “And the next Sabbath-day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.” Acts 16: 13. “And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made.” Chap. 17: 2. “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath-days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” This says, “As his manner was.” Chap. 18: 4. “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” This is “every Sabbath.” Verse 11: “And he continued there a year and six months.” Now if it was Paul's manner to reason in the synagogue every Sabbath, he must have, in this place, observed seventy-eight Sabbaths.

It is evident that Christ had his eye on the observance of the Sabbath, as late certainly as A. D. 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed, when he said: “Pray that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath-day.” Matt. 24: 20. But if this tribulation spoken of has reference to the “Papal persecution,” as many believe, then they were directed to the observance of the Sabbath, to a much later period.

A word now in relation to the history. As far as I have been able to examine, during the last six months, since I became convicted on this point, I find the following to be true: The disciples evidently kept the first day of the week as a festival, in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ, but never as the Sabbath. A controversy, however, commenced toward the close of the first century to see whether both days should be kept, or only one; and if one should be given up, which one, the first day or the seventh. This controversy increased century after century, till A. D. 608, when Pope Gregory passed a law abolishing the seventh-day Sabbath, and establishing the first day. “The Parliament of England met on Sundays until the time of Richard II.” “The first law of England made for keeping Sunday, was in the time of Edward VI, about 1470.” Thus we see Dan. 7: 25 fulfilled, the “little horn” changing “times and laws.” Therefore, it appears to me that all who keep the first day for “the Sabbath,” are Pope's Sunday-keepers!! and God's SABBATH-BREAKERS!!!

Truth is what I am after, and if I had but one day on this earth to spend, I would give up error for truth, as soon as I could see it. May the Lord give us wisdom, and help us to keep all his commandments that we may have right to the tree of life. Rev. 22: 14.

Yours, daily looking, and patiently waiting for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.' T. M. PREBLE. East Weare, N. H., Feb. 13, 1845.

TRUSTING IN THE LORD.

By Mary E. Guilford

Weary, and worn with toil and care, With aching heart, and anguished brow, In humble faith and earnest prayer, Lord, helpless at thy feet I bow.

Lonely and sad, I come to thee, To tell the trials of the day; I know thou'lt not despise my plea, Nor empty turn my soul away.

Beset with cares on every side; My heart grows faint, and doubts perplex, While pains invade, and woes betide, And fear and sin my soul doth vex.

I would not ask some easier way, Nor one less fraught with anxious care; But grace to help me day by day, With cheerfulness my lot to bear.

I would not shrink from duty's task, Nor wish the burden to be light; 'Tis heavenly wisdom that I ask, To guide me in the path of right;

Help me each doubt and fear remove; Cleanse me from sin and make me whole; Assurance give of thy dear love, So precious to the weary soul.

With patience, Lord, I'll run the race, Until I win the victor's prize; Till grief and pain to joy give place, Within the realms of Paradise.

MARY E. GUILFORD.

Castalia, Ohio.

Brutal Outrage on a Wesleyan Minister:

By J. L. Bush

THAT the reader may better understand the facts, I will give a brief history of events which immediately preceded the cruel brutalities described below.

The Rev. D. F. Rathbun was invited to lecture on Masonry while spending a few days in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. After consenting to do so, he was met by a man claiming to be a freemason, and proved himself by Masonic signs, &c.

Soon he entered into earnest conversation respecting the promised lecture, holding up the fraternity, by saying, “No such brotherly love exists in any church on earth.” He also asked brother Rathbun “from whence he came,” and what was his nearest railroad station. He told him Canisteo, on the York and Erie railroad. Then the Mason asked him if there were any Masons at that place. He replied, “There is a lodge there.” The Mason then said to brother Rathbun, “I do not think you understand Masonry, or you would not oppose it.” Brother Rathbun stepped up to him and whispered in his ear, which made him very much excited, and, with an oath, he told him to keep his head shut.

The above conversation occurred Tuesday, June 7th. The evening of the next day brother Rathbun lectured in that place. After the lecture, this Mason began to talk roughly and loudly; so much so that an officer told him to keep still, or he would arrest him. Brother Rathbun spoke kindly to him in Masonic language, saying, “We met yesterday on the level, let us now part on the square.” The reply was, “No, not by a d——d sight.”

On Friday, brother Rathbun returned to Buena Vista. In a very few days' word came from Canisteo to him, charging him with having lectured against Masonry, while in Pennsylvania. In a morning or two after receiving this word, he found a paper stuck up in his barn, with a coffin and a pair of scales drawn on it. Thursday evening, June 16th, he attended a prayer-meeting at the Church in Buena Vista. After meeting, he and others remained at the church to practice singing. While there, at about eleven o’clock, he thought he heard his horse kicking in the barn. He ran without a light to see to his horse; entered the barn and found the horse all right.

But here opens a scene of a different character. Just as he stepped out of the door, he was caught by the collar, and at the same time struck in the face by a ruffian with such violence as would have knocked him down had he not been held up by the grip; then he was so badly choked as to be rendered unconscious, until they had dragged or carried him about forty rods. On becoming conscious, he found himself surrounded by a mob of six or eight persons. They then took a rail, put him on it, and it upon their shoulders, with one holding to each limb; and in this way they jammed and jerked him. Then changing the programme, they took him from the rail and dragged him through a mud-hole, feet first, upon his back; then turned him on his face and drew him through the mud again. They then placed him upon the rail again, carried him still farther; all told, probably sixty rods. Again they threw him off, and one man taking him by each limb, they jammed him, head foremost into a mud-hole, where the water was four or five inches deep over the mud, violently forcing his hand and face under the mud until he became strangled and choked; after which they took him out.

On recovering enough to speak, he asked them what he had done to merit such treatment; whereupon, cursing him, they said, “Kill him! kill him!” and caught him and tore his vest, shirt, and pants nearly off from him in front. Then they threw him in the mud again on his face; and two of them jumped upon him and stamped him down into the mud; one on his head and shoulders, and the other on his hips, till life seemed almost extinct; then drawing him out, said to him: “This is not meeting on the level and parting on the square,” and added that they would give him just thirty days to leave the vicinity, or they would cut his d——d throat—swearing most bitterly they would do it.

They then placed him on the rail again, turning about, and after proceeding some thirty rods, dropped their load and ran off suddenly. Brother Rathbun thinks they heard his wife calling for him.

If possible, the most fiendish and villainous of the whole treatment was a free use of the spirits of turpentine upon his lacerated flesh torn by the rail, particulars of which modesty forbids me to narrate. Suffice it to say, that the whole transaction was such a character as well might cause shame to the inhabitants of the northernmost regions. But it is my business to characterize this barbarous treatment of a faithful Christian minister, and a free American citizen, but to chronicle the facts. And in this connection I would add, that I have submitted the above statement to brother Rathbun, and he says it is a fair representation.

It is not for me to say this was a Masonic mob. But an intelligent public will judge in the light of the facts. These facts are substantially the following: Sullivan County, Pennsylvania, brother Rathbun had an appointment to lecture on Masonry—the evening before the lecture, he informed a Mason what was the nearest railroad station, and that there was a Masonic lodge there—this Mason attended the lecture, became angry and talked and behaved in an unbecoming manner—at this state of affairs brother Rathbun, in Masonic language, said, “As we met on the level, let us part on the square”—in a few days after, it is known at the nearest station in Steuben County, New York, that he had lectured against Masonry in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania—a paper is stuck up in his barn having on it drawn, a coffin and a pair of balances; the balance being a Masonic emblem which may be seen with square and compass, in the encircled red on the face of United States bills of all denominations; as if Masonic emblems had any business on United States currency—in the dead of night he is savagely assaulted and disgracefully abused, and ordered from the country on peril of having his throat cut, by men who assigned no reason for such conduct, but quote the very Masonic language respecting meeting “on the level” and parting “on the square,” he had addressed to the infuriated Mason in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania, but nine days before; and to my certain knowledge, excepting the Masons and their sympathizers, brother Rathbun is respected and beloved by the community in which he lives.

These are the facts. The case is a clear one. An intelligent public will have no trouble in determining who were the agents in this worse than brutal outrage perpetrated upon the person of a zealous and devout man of God, who is giving his entire life in labor for the highest good of his fellow-men. We do not live in Central Africa, nor in New Zealand, nor in the wilds of Arabia, nor even among the murderous Ku Klux of the South. We know full well what all right-minded persons must think of any institution in our midst, whether secret or open, which will in any wise allow itself to be responsible for such cruelty and outlawry upon unoffending citizens. No institution can quicker seal its doom than to even tolerate such conduct, on the part of any of its members. But I add no more.

Brother Rathbun will not leave; neither is he the least intimidated by what he has suffered, nor yet by what has been threatened. He is in the hands of his

God. And he knows in whom he believes. Let all who read this pray that he may be kept from murderous hands; and let us stand with him and by him in the cause of Christ, for which he suffers.—J. L. Bush, in Am. Wesleyan, July, 1870.

David and Shimei.

By John Norton Loughborough

An objection is raised against David in the case of Shimei also, by those enemies of the Lord whom David gave “occasion to blaspheme,” in his falling into adultery. It is said that David professed to pardon Shimei; and yet he did not; for he told Solomon to slay him.

Let us look at the facts. In the very time that Shimei was cursing, it was in the power of David to destroy him; but there was still in him that tender regard for the family even, of the “Lord’s anointed,” that he had for Saul when he spared him, even when it was in the power of his hand to slay him.

“And when king David came to Bahurim, behold, thence came out a man of the family of the house of Saul, whose name was Shimei, the son of Gera; he came forth, and cursed still as he came. And he cast stones at David, and at all the servants of king David; and all the people, and all the mighty men were on his right hand and on his left. And thus said Shimei when he cursed, Come out, come out, thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial; the Lord hath returned upon thee all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast reigned; and the Lord hath delivered the kingdom into the hand of Absalom thy son; and, behold, thou art taken in thy mischief, because thou art a bloody man. Then said Abishai the son of Zeruiah unto the king, Why should this dead dog curse my lord? let me go over, I pray thee, and take off his head. And the king said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah? so let him curse, because the Lord hath said unto him, Curse David. Who shall then say, Wherefore hast thou done so? And David said to Abishai, and to all his servants, Behold, my son, which came forth of my bowels, seeketh my life; how much more now may this Benjamite do it? let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord hath bidden him. It may be that the Lord will look on mine affliction, and that the Lord will requite me good for his cursing this day. And as David and his men went by the way, Shimei went along on the hill’s side over against him, and cursed as he went, and threw stones at him, and cast dust.”

When David returned, Shimei came out to meet him professing great humility. Again he is in the hand of David; but instead of slaying him he takes him as a true penitent and swears not to kill him.

“And Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite, which was of Bahurim, hasted and came down with the men of Judah to meet king David. And there were a thousand men of Benjamin with him, and Ziba the servant of the house of Saul, and his fifteen sons and his twenty servants with him; and they went over Jordan before the king. And there went over a ferry-boat to carry over the king’s household, and to do what he thought good. And Shimei the son of Gera fell down before the king, as he was come over Jordan; and said unto the king, Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversely the day that my lord the king went out of Jerusalem, that the king should take it to his heart. For thy servant doth know that I have sinned; therefore, behold, I am come the first this day of all the house of Joseph to go down to meet my lord the king. But Abishai the son of Zeruiah answered and said, Shall not Shimei be put to death for this, because he cursed the Lord’s anointed? And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries unto me? Shall there any man be put to death this day in Israel? for do not I know that I am this day king over Israel? Therefore the king said unto Shimei, Thou shalt not die. And the king sware unto him.” 2 Sam. 19: 16–23.

Now we read what David said to Solomon concerning Shimei, which, compared with what Solomon himself finally said to him when he slew him, shows that the wicked course of Shimei was still apparent, although he had humbly confessed to David.

“And, behold, thou hast with thee Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim, which cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim; but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I sware to him by the Lord, saying, I will not put thee to death with the sword. Now therefore hold him not guiltless: for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him; but his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood.” 1 Kings 2: 8, 9.

But now let us read the account of the course pursued with Shimei, after David has put his life in Solomon’s hands.

“And the king sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Build thee an house in Jerusalem, and dwell there, and go not forth thence any whither. For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head. And Shimei said unto the king, The saying is good: as my lord the king hath said, so will thy servant do. And Shimei dwelt in Jerusalem many days. And it came to pass at the end of three years, that two of the servants of Shimei ran away unto Achish, son of Maachah, king of Gath. And they told Shimei, saying, Behold, thy servants be in Gath. And Shimei arose and saddled his ass, and went to Gath, to Achish, to seek his servants: and Shimei went, and brought his servants from Gath. And it was told Solomon that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath, and was come again. And the king sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Did I not make thee to swear by the Lord, and protested unto thee, saying, Know for a certain, on the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, that thou shalt surely die? and thou saidst unto me, The word that I have heard is good? Why then hast thou not kept the oath of the Lord, and the commandment that I have charged thee with? The king said moreover to Shimei, Thou knowest all the wickedness which thine heart is privy to, that thou didst to David my father: therefore the Lord shall return thy wickedness upon thine own head; and king Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the Lord forever. So the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; which went out and fell upon him, that he died. And the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.” 1 Kings 2: 36–46.

In the above we behold not only the magnanimous course of Solomon with Shimei, but we see the wickedness of Shimei’s heart, in that for so slight a matter he violated his most solemn oath.

Solomon’s course with Shimei virtually placed his life in his own hands, and put a test upon him to see if he had at least regard enough for right to respect his own oath. Who of those who rail against David would have dealt as mildly with such a foe? Who?

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

Charming, more Charming, most Charming.

By John Matteson

This earth contains many a charm, although it has lost its Eden glory. And if most of the people were good, the earth would be a more desirable place to dwell in.

1. The many wonderful discoveries of this age charm the minds of millions, and lend enchantment to the world. The adversary also does all in his power to make worldly interests and enterprises more interesting, and consequently the world itself charming.

But there is a far greater and truer enjoyment, even in this world, when we find peace in God, are contented and happy in him, and are enjoying sweet communion with Jesus from day to day, live in the blessed hope and anticipation of joys eternal.

Yet the most glorious of all, the consummation of that hope, still remains, when faith shall be turned into sight, prayer into praise, and hope into glad fruition. When God will remove all sin, and sorrow, and death; neither shall there be any more pain. How sweet these last words, “Neither shall there be any more pain.” Let them ring continually in our ears. God will make all things new. And his tabernacle shall be with men; and he will be their God, and they shall be his people; and God himself shall dwell among them.

2. There are charms in friendship. This is right, for it is God's own order.

Love and friendship bind hearts together in those more endearing relations of husband and wife, parents and children. And when they have endured trials together, and been purified together by heavenly truth, such relationship becomes indeed more charming.

But what is all this compared to a Saviour's matchless love and beauty. He indeed is most charming. In Christ shine forth so many heavenly virtues, such loveliness of character, such beauty and grace, that the more I become acquainted with Jesus, the more I can love him. The more I consider his life, his sufferings and death, his wonderful work of intercession, staying the judgments of God, and causing sweet mercy to linger, opening up an exhaustless fountain of love and compassion to all who will come unto him, the more he becomes to me the chief among ten thousand, and altogether lovely. Blessed prospect! In the glorious kingdom these perfections will appear to the happy saints with thousandfold power and beauty, causing their hearts to swell with joy unspeakable and full of glory.

3. There is a charm in looking forward through the distance of time to the fulfillment of duty and accomplishment of certain great achievements. Yet very often this is nothing but the enchantment of the enemy who would draw away our minds from present duty, and bring us shame and disappointment in the future when our plans fail.

There is far more true enjoyment and moral excellence in fulfilling present duty day by day, and accomplishing what good we can now, in the humble sphere that may open up to us daily.

And thus we will be prepared for that perfect and heavenly state, where our happy employment will every day be most glorious and exalted.

May God enable us to distinguish between false and true charms, and to fix our eyes and heart steadfastly upon that most charming crown of eternal excellency and glory.

J. MATTESON.

Short Catechism.

By L. H. Hunting

“For Moses, of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.” Acts 15: 21.

1. Can this text have any relation to the question of the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first-day?

Perhaps so; it mentions the Sabbath-day, and what was done on it.

2. When is it held that the change of the day was made?

It is claimed that Saturday ceased to be God's Sabbath, and Sunday was instituted in its place, at the resurrection of Christ.

3. How long after the resurrection was this language used by James?

According to the common chronology, about 19 years.

4. When were the writings of Moses read in the synagogues?

James says, “Every Sabbath-day.”

5. But was not Saturday the day on which they were read?

Undoubtedly.

6. Then was Saturday the Sabbath of that time?

So it would seem.

7. Was Moses read in the synagogues on the Sundays?

No one claims it.

8. But if Sunday was a Sabbath, they must have been read on that day?

Yes; for they were read every Sabbath-day.

9. What conclusions, then, would you draw from the facts of the text?

That Saturday was a Sabbath 19 years after the resurrection; and that Sunday was not then a Sabbath

10. But if that was so then, when was the change made?

I do not know. Not certainly at the resurrection.

L. H. HUNTING.

Fear God and Honor Your Profession

Fear God and honor your profession.

Continue reading: Thoughts on the Book of Daniel